clubpenguinfanonfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Agentgenius (Banned)
An Appeal for Peace and a Message to TurtleShroom Look, TS, we are always fighting. Maybe that will never change. But let's look at the roots of the problem. We believe different things are good for the Wiki. You believe that stability is paramount, and must be maintained at all costs, even if the system itself is flawed. I believe that change for change's sake must be maintained, lest stagnation ensue. These worldviews appear, at first glance, to be incompatible. But this is a mistake. The mistake is a simple one to make. At least I suppose it is, since every User on every Wiki we have ever worked together on seems to have made it (and if anyone hasn’t then I wish they had told one of us.) ‘’Stability is not the same as changelessness.’’ Now, you might point out that change usually results in instability. However, there is at least one system where this is not so: a Self-Perpetuating Bureaucracy. Now, Bureaucracy has three meanings. 1. Frustrating rules: complex rules and regulations applied rigidly 2. A high level of Wiki Adminship: Gives the ability to Rollback, Delete, Ban, and Promote. Cannot be demoted by any less than a Staff Member. 3. Administrative system: an administrative system, especially in a government, that divides work into specific categories carried out by special departments of nonelected officials I mean the last one. Why not? We are already run by the Bureau of Bureaucracy (BOB), why not turn it into an ‘’actual’’ bureau? A Self-Perpetuating Bureaucracy A Self-Perpetuating Bureaucracy works as follows: *I see a problem with, say, the grammar in articles. *I go to the BOB. *I ask to set up a Bureau of Grammar. *The BOB discusses my proposal. *I am told that there is already a Bureau of English. *I go to the Bureau of English. *I ask to set up a Bureau of Grammar. *The BOE discusses my proposal. *My proposal is approved. *I go create my new Bureau. *I propose that the problem by corrected. *The Bureau of Grammar considers my proposal. *The problem is corrected. This is the absolute maximum required to correct any problem or implement any change in a Self-Perpetuating Bureaucracy. A more usual scenario (once the Bureaucracy has had a while to work) is: *I see a problem with the grammar in articles. *I go to the Bureau of Grammar. *I propose that the problem by corrected. *The BOG considers my proposal. *The problem is corrected. Now, you might be wondering what this has to do with our persistent arguments. The key is in the fact that if I want, I can find or create a Bureau that will consider (and, hopefully, implement) my idea. What’s more, even if most of the Wiki doesn’t understand the idea, it can still be considered and implemented, as whoever is in the Bureau of, say, Article Construction or the Bureau of Continuity or whatever should have a very good understanding of Article Construction, Continuity etc. Thus, an idea may be considered and implemented (or rejected) while neatly avoiding the chief problem of Democracy: that voters often have no clue what they are voting for. But This Wiki Is A Democracy! It may seem that a Bureaucracy is simply an Oligarchy in discise. Whenever this is brought up I personally think of your infamous remark, TS, where you defended Webmastership against my branding it as a Dictatorship by pointing out that there are ‘’two’’ Webmasters, thus making it an Oligarchy; we were being governed by an elite group of two. You then challenged me to attack Oligarchies instead, a system of government which most people despise and which led to the French revolution, to give one example. But I digress. A Bureaucracy is not an Oligarchy, by virtue of the fact that anyone may be part of a Bureau, and anyone may create a Bureau. A Bureaucracy is merely a Democracy where only people who know what they’re talking about vote on that particular subject. It also happens to be incredibly efficient, amazingly stable and, as it happens, your own idea. ’’My’’ Idea? Indeed, I believe it was you who said that you hoped that the BOB would eventually become like Congress, delegating tasks to specific Bureaus. Or perhaps it was Explorer who said that. I forget. I have a tendency to classify your actions together, since you two have been the prime instigators against me ever since I joined this Wiki. It’s just a habit. But anyway, one of you thought of it, and I think it would be a fitting way to end our enmity: an idea that was yours, designed by me, and implemented, I hope, together. In Conclusion A Self-Perpetuating Bureaucracy is as near perfect as I can think of. It stops us from trying to kill each other, it’s stable, it’s Democratic, it’s efficient, it solves the biggest problem Democracy has ever had, and it’s your own idea. I personally can’t think of anything better then that. Yours Optimistically, ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 20:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Q&A Here is where you ask questions on this Self-Perpetuating Bureaucracy thingy and I answer. Please expect long delays, for why see my absence note. ---- Q: The letter is nice and everything, but can you please clarify it instead of being nebulously ambiguous and using discombobulating and bamboozling terminology? Thank you. Yours Quandrariously, Explorer 767 A: I'm sorry Explorer, but you're the self-proclaimed nerd. You should know what I'm saying. Read it again. If you want clarification, give me the specific points you have trouble with. OK? TXS. Yours Requestfully, ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC) ---- Q: The letter is sweet, but I find it suspicious that you hardly antagonize yourself while subtly mentioning that TS has some twisted morales [SIC]. "...you TurtleShroom believe that stability is paramount... even if the system itself is flawed..." Did you have to interview TurtleShroom to get that antagonizing description of his character, or did you just assume that? Furthermore, are you suggesting that we have an infinite amount of intelligent users? It seems to me that in your proposal, 1) everyone in the wiki is intelligent enough to handle a Bureau, 2) we have an infinite amount of users (hey, if we're going to able to make an infinite amount of Bureaus, we'll need an infinite amount of users to run them), and 3) all proposals for Bureaus are accepted. Such is definitely not the case, and you're not taking into consideration that the system may still be flawed. Finally, why do we actually need this system of government? Why are all other systems flawed, and exactly, pray tell, is this one flawless? You mention that stability is not nessecarily lack of change, but where in the proposal do you prove that? Why do we need to ask higher-order users in order to do something simple such as correcting grammar? With this system, we lose our freedom to make choices. Shouldn't government be there only when it needs to be? Why can't users just choose if they want to? Government is really only there to enforce the law; it's not like you have to always ask it. Please note that after Crisis II, the Lawsuit Incident, and hearing about and witnessing your acts against the CPW and CPFW, I simply cannot trust you. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 21:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC) A: #I'm sorry if that suggested anything nasty to you. I was just trying to emphasise how much he cares about this Wiki, being willing to submit to an unjust system (if necisary) rather than endanger it's stability. I could never do that. And, on a side note, I did try to explose the flaws on both sides, but as I am on one of them, I can hardly be considered impartial. #I actually think it is quite offensive of you to suggest that only an elite few of our Users in intelligent enough to be allowed to have a say in thier own affairs. Howerver: ##'1) everyone in the wiki is intelligent enough to handle a Bureau.' Name one who isn't. But this is the essance of Democracy: we ALL get a say, no matter how dumb you may think we are. ##'2) we have an infinite amount of users (hey, if we're going to able to make an infinite amount of Bureaus, we'll need an infinite amount of users to run them)'OK, who said we'd have an infinite amount of Bureaus? But anyway, who said you could only be in ONE Bureau? ##'3) all proposals for Bureaus are accepted.'I'm sorry, when did I say that? And why would we WANT that? If I was to ask to create a Bureau of Vandalizing Pages for Fun, would you want hat accepted? #Finally, why do we actually need this system of government?(Haven't you been listening? We need it because A. it will stop all this fighting. B It will keep the Wiki stable and C It will be more efficiant then the current system.) Why are all other systems flawed(I never said they were, but let's face it, all systems are flawed. I merely have yet to hear of the flaws in this one. But a Self-Perpetuating Bureaucracy can fix it's own flaws, thus making it as close to a perfect system as I can imagine.), and exactly, pray tell, is this one flawless?(I'm sorry, I just answered that.) You mention that stability is not nessecarily lack of change, but where in the proposal do you prove that(I'm sorry, Stability is lack of destabilising Change. We make all changes stable; we make stability.)? Why do we need to ask higher-order users in order to do something simple such as correcting grammar(No, I meant a serious and widespread Grammar problem. Not a single mistake in a single article!)? With this system, we lose our freedom to make choices(How?). Shouldn't government be there only when it needs to be(It is, you don't create a Bureau for something that is already running fine without administration.)? Why can't users just choose if they want to(What, like 'choosing' t ignore the rules? 'Choosing' to vandalize? Please clarify.)? Government is really only there to enforce the law(Also to create it.); it's not like you have to always ask it(Well duh. You only have to ask it if you want to do something Governmental.). #I would appreciate it if you didn't delete my answers this time. Does that answer your questions? Yours requestfuly, ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 09:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ---- Q: No, I'm afraid you're still getting everything wrong. You say this government will solve all our problems, but you never actually prove it. You also antagonize TS by saying that he believes stability is paramount, even if it means doing the wrong thing. THAT VIOLATES THE COC, AS YOU ARE ANTAGONIZING A FELLOW USER BY USING PROPAGANDA. YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT YOUR DESCRIPTION IS TRUE. Stop telling and start showing. I really don't see why we need this government system. We need change only when we need it. Right now, the wiki is peaceful. There have been no Crises. There have been no riots. We don't need change.... as of yet. Until the day that we see the current government crumble before our eyes, we don't need to change if we're sure our status quo works for us. Agentgenius, I understand that you want to help the wiki. But now is not the time. Right now, the BOB is working fine, and until it fails us (like the webmasters dynasty did), we don't have to remove it. The flaw with change itself is being unsure. There are thousands of choices in front of us, and it's easy to make a mistake. It's like batteries in an appliance -- you don't remove them until they're dead. Right now, the BOB seems to be the safest place, and until that fails, I believe we should stay with it. However, we may use your system once the BOB crumbles, Agentgenius, so you can get your share. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) A: # Oh no! Did it sound like that! No I meant that he wouldn't change things if he thought that the Wiki could survive without the change, as the change could endanger the stability of this Wiki. That is NOT the wrong thing to do. I simply believe that this change will not endanger the stability of this Wiki, and as such it is safe to implement it. # I'm sorry, but that's just 'If it aint broke, don't fix it'. I never said the BOB was bad, in fact it is good. But a SPB is better. More stable too. We change if the change is for the better, not if the change is forced. # Ahh. But are we unsure? U'm sorry, but I have thought for some time about this, and I do not doubt that you have too. Niether of us has managed to find any situation where the SPB would fail. I am considering a method of testing, so that we can test if it is truly workable, but that isn't rady yet. Give me a while. Yours requestfully, ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 04:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) ---- Q: # ...shure, shure.... # ....prove it, meister Genius.... and what I'm actually saying is, "If it ain't broken, then don't break it." (I.e., if the system's good already, then don't attempt to perfect it because 1) there is no such thing as a perfect system, and 2) you have a high chance of taking a wrong step.) # ....proof by lack of evidence fallacy, a.k.a. argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because no one has proven the SPB wrong does not mean that it is right. However, an experiment would be an excellent idea. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 18:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC) A: #Good. I'm really sorry about that. #Did I say this was a perfect system? No. I said it was a better system. And that is what we should be asking ourselves; not 'is this neccisary' but 'is this good'. #OK, I guess I deserved that. But the 'Experiment' thingy is not quite ready. I suggest we should start by asking ourselves that question I put above. Yours requestfully, ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 04:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) ---- What's with Alex? I'm sorry, but Zapwire just quit and I want to know why. I did some digging and Alex001 appears to be in the right. Could someone please explain?!-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Alex swore several times and acted immaturely. He also reacted badly to our block, so we had to raise it. Aas for Zap quitting, I have no clue. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) No, you misunderstood. Zap said he quit because Alex was banned. So I want to know why Alex was banned. And I'm sorry, but Immaturity is hardly a blocking matter, and niether is disliking being blocked. Swearing maby, but only if there has been two previus warnings. Sorry, how did he react badly?-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Agentgenius, since I was the one who had the idea of Alex's block I will explain what he did. * Bullied Tails.(Not like when you say Explorer Bully, like bully bully) * Swore. * Not accepting punishment(AKA POWER-ABUSE) * Having a username starting with an A''(JK) --HappyfaceWantsToTalk 20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC) * Bullying? Hmmm... what did he do exactly? ** And I don't say 'Explorer Bully'. What an odd thing to say. * Swearing? Had he been given two previus wornings? * Oh, I get it. He unblocked himself. Well, I'll just go check what he gave as the reason. -- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC) ....you don't say "Explorer Bully"? .....''That is a big fat whopping lie. Why don't you check out this, or perhaps Wiki.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Giggati&oldid=44256 this? Solid proof? I believe so. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Loook, I apologised. A while back. And I *think* you accepted my apology. Look, I don't mean to be rude, but you do sometimes do things that, if I didn't know you better, would seem like bullying or vandalizm or power abuse etc. Just saying. I hope that clears that up, I've always thought there were some people who didn't hear me apologise.-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 04:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) ....okaaaayyyy..... apology accepted..... =S ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 13:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry about that, but I get too many past 'crimes' haunting me that I can't afford another. Anyway; why is Alex banned?-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 19:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Infinite Timelines This is a bit like what I was talking about, only less so.-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 04:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, so that's what you were talking about.... however, the Field Guide is Shout Box exclusive -- we're only using it for RPGs on the Box. We might expand it into articles, but I doubt that will happen (as much as I want it to). ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 13:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Well, that's sorta what I meant. My idea was, I think, better, so it would have worked in articles while this may not. However, I reckon that we could expand it into the mainspace sometime.-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 19:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC) If you like. I was planning to make articles on all the characters (not too many, though, just a few) and have them included in crazy stories where they somehow end up in the Fanon Wiki Universe and go on crazy adventures. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 'Flame War' HANG ON A MO! I've been looking around, and all sorts of random pages (such as my User Page??!!!) are being deleted with 'Flame war' as the reason! What is going on???!!!!-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 04:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC) We removed court, so we're removing the serious cases, except for the fake ones. --[[User:Zapwire|'Zapwire']] Δ The dark side of the moon 09:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, but my User Page is NOT a Court Case.-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 19:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I Kinda Surrender Look, I have just seen how well the Wiki is functioning, so I will bide my time. But unban me. I have broken not one single rule. I'm sick of being banned. So, a deal (I never thought it would come to this); I will stop trying to revolutionise the Wiki and abide by the rules if you accept the fact that I am guilty of no crime. OK?-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC) We accept your apology, but we can't just erase your criminal record! Look, if you promise to stop trying to stir revolutions, we'll forget your record as much as possible. However, it'll still be there. Deal? ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but the point is, I have no Criminal Record to erase. I was innocent, and I want that acnolageded. O.K.?-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 04:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC) You have a criminal record. Remember the User Lounge? Suing people for no reason. Attacking people. Calling people bullies. FOR NO REASON. Fully surrender, and we might unban you. AND WE WANT A CONTRACT FROM YOU! --HappyfaceWantsToTalk 05:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Ummm... *User Lounge? You mean that wholo 'impersonation' thing?!! That was settled AGES ago! Look it up and see for yourself! *No reason? I had rreasons. Because some people thing my reasons were incorrect changes NOTHING. I was fully allowed to sue people. Just incorrect. *Attacking people??!!! *'Calling people bullies. FOR NO REASON.' Actually, I had very good reasons, but I had misenterperted their actions. It only LOOKED like they wer running a campain of destruction toban me and destroy everything I ever did. And I have to say, from where I'm sitting, it looked a LOT like that. But I eventually realised that thier reasons were excelent, even if thier actions were technically illegal, so I agreed to stop. *A contract? Of course! Like I'm going to surrender without guarrentees. I'm afraid I no longer trust you (well, not so much you, as the people who helped get me banned) and I cannot risk them doing this again. But I can't write the contract 'till an agreement is made.-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 05:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Excuse me? Just because you settled your crimes doesn't mean you don't have a criminal record! We never erased your crimes; apology or not, they're still there. You impersonated TurtleShroom VERY disrespectfully, attacked people like TS, me, Happyface, the RV Clan... shall I name more? Pretty much the only thing we can let you off on is your calling people disrespectful names. Still though, that's still a blot on your record. Furthermore, you were banned for a reason: causing Crisis II, and tearing the wiki apart with your court house cases. It's not like we won't ban you at all even if you break the COC; that would be completely unfair. If we unban you, you have to be treated as a normal user. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 14:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I mean I want you to admit my innocence. Of course I still have a criminal record. Of incorrect charges. And I'm afraid you can't pin Crisis II on me, I wasn't even there. But you're right, of course if I break the COC I should be banned. But I didn't.-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 17:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC) *You impersonated TurtleShroom VERY disrespectfully You're STILL dragging that up? I hate it when people drag up noncrimes of mine. Look, I didn't impersonate TS, and look it up if you don't believe me. It isn't my fault you have a bad memory(:->) so don't punish me fr it. *attacked people like TS, me, Happyface, the RV Clan... shall I name more? Sorry? I once sued some members of the RV clan... but I've never attacked HF... *Pretty much the only thing we can let you off on is your calling people disrespectful names. Still though, that's still a blot on your record. You must admit that the evidense was pretty convincing. If I had to, I could still probably make ou a good case for tht actually. So you can hardly blame me for that. *Furthermore, you were banned for a reason: causing Crisis II I didn't cause Crisis II. I wasn't there for Crisis II. I was not involved in Crisis II. I have no knowlegge of Crisis II. *and tearing the wiki apart with your court house cases. You know, it's amazing. No matter how many times I tear a Wiki apart, it always seems unaffected exept that I'm banned and you're yelling 'OMG AG IS AN EVIL TERRORIST HE DESTROYED THIS WIKI WE MUST DESTROY HIM!!!!!!!!!!'. And I always seem to destroy Wiki in the most innocuous of ways; suing someone, talking, standing in the wrong place at the wrong time... I'm sorry for all the sarcasm there, I get a bit annoyed when people bring up noncrimes of mine.-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC) If you can't acknowledge the fact that you violated the COC several times, apologize, and promise not to cause any more trouble, what reason would we have to unban you? ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 14:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but where does it say that court cases are illegal? I have apologised and promised, but I will not aknowledge illegality. I have NEVER broken the rules.-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 17:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, I've checked the COC and compared them with AG's claims. AG has broken no crimes. However, his actions do seem to be morally disrespectful. And the evidence agaisnt him is pretty convincing. --'Icmer In Nyc http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/6/6c/Smile_spin.gif (Da ice man has landed!)' 18:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I never claimed I was right. I wasn't. I was legal. But I have apologised. And I'm afraid you can't block someone for morals.-- ₪ ΔĢєŋŦGεиιυς דα└к: 18:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Why do I recall this?Sorry about that, but I get too many past 'crimes' haunting me that I can't afford another. Anyway; why is Alex banned?--HappyfaceWantsToTalk 15:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)